If you don't know, don't vote. Or better yet, find out. Then vote

If the revisions to the city of Detroit's charter pass at the polls tomorrow, it will have been an uphill battle.

Charter commissioners, the folks who spent the last two years revising Detroit's governing document, are barred by campaign finance laws from telling Detroiters to vote "yes."

But opponents of the revised charter have no such constraint.

Take, for example, a flyer one of my colleagues was given over the weekend. "Vote NO On Charter" is the headline. It continues with "10 Good Reasons To Just Say NO." The final tagline is like voter education antimatter: "If you don't know, just vote no."

In the absence of a third-party "Yes on C" campaign, charter commissioners have been confined — for the most part — to outreach and education, trying to tell Detroiters what's good about the charter without crossing the line.

Jenice Mitchell Ford, chair of the charter revision commission, is hoping that's enough — and that the silent majority of change-seeking Detroiters that elected Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, five new Detroit City Council members and the charter commission turns out in force.

"It is my belief that that same silent majority will come out again," she said.

Mitchell Ford says the charter isn't a perfect document, and won't make everyone happy. But, she notes, that's the nature of compromise.

"There are good things in this charter that can lead to change if coupled with well-intentioned, skilled officials," she said.

This charter doesn't detail the kind of departmental streamlining that could make Detroit's bloated bureaucracy leaner, but Mitchell Ford says it provides a roadmap through a section on eliminating redundancy in government, and encouraging shared services and cooperation.

(Incidentally, this is one of the sections to which charter opponents, led by former mayoral candidate Tom Barrow, object, saying that talk of redundancy is a blind for the section's "real diabolical purpose," which is apparently regionalization.)

One change, Mitchell Ford notes, is the way budgets are handled.

Twice a year, before the mayoral administration develops a budget, the budget director, the council's fiscal analyst and the city's auditor general would discuss the city's revenue. And when deficits arise, the revised charter would require the department to immediately notify the administration, and would require a council hearing in 10 days. The easiest way to eliminate a multi-million dollar hole, after all, is not to dig it in the first place.

If the charter doesn't pass this fall, commissioners can attempt to revise it and bring it back before voters next year. A spring special election would cost the city money; waiting for the fall general election means the charter commission would expire before the vote.

Whether you're voting for or against the charter, I've got an alternate, albeit not as catchy, slogan to suggest: If you don't know, read the charter and make an informed decision before casting your ballot.